entrerix

so if a designer were to make an extremely realistic shooter where your aim dropped to basically zero if you moved and shot, you'd not complain? but if a designer just says, "perfect accuracy when not moving, can't fire when moving", you wouldn't play it? that sounds like you're being more arbitrary than the designer. and i definitely agree that this is just like not playing a turn based game because you think its an outdated mechanic. a new game could easily come out today that requires you to actually stop and aim your gun to fire it and it wouldnt be outdated. hell it might even get praised as innovative because it raises the realism/immersion factor whatever. now i DO agree that the transition in re games between moving and firing could be smoothed a bit, and making it easier to aim once your gun is drawn maybe would help. but i cannot agree that the design decision to let one move or shoot is based on retro video games.

i guess we just disagree on the issue then. I see different treatment for adult bookstores than normal bookstores, you dont. I see strip clubs having a hard time passing muster when the ballet does not. porn always has a tougher time passing the test than non-porn. I'm just surprised you've never noticed, let alone the idea that you think it's a ridiculous thought that im just conjuring up out of no where. i see different treatment for cigarette billboards than ones for the next transformers movie, you don't. both are commercial speech, yet one has limitations and the other doesnt. state interest is stronger against cigarettes BECAUSE ITS A VICE ie bad for children. just because i'm using a word that you dont see the court use doesnt mean it can't apply. like i said, its not the phrasing i'd use in a brief, but it sums up the general realities. i see the courts consistently striking down censorship laws for video games using the third prong's "art" element, you only see that being used if they also talk about political and science aspects of that prong as well. (i know the official test names more than just art, but if you're talking about a piece of entertainment the courts dont bring up science and politics, they just talk about art because that's the one of those three that applies.) maybe its that you dont understand that the art/politics/science aspect requires only ONE of those three to be hit. not all of them, so there are essentially three categories within that prong. as for art piece failing becuase its fighting words or some other type of unprotected speech, i meant art always* will pass the obscenity test because of the third prong. not that it will be able to escape the other categories (which honestly i can't remember any except fighting words and obscenity off the top of my head, its been a few years since con law). i just don't have it in me to convince you that were video games considered to have no greater artistic merit than porn that they would have more limitations than they do now. It's something I believe, and I'm glad it's not the case. you can obviously feel free to believe that hustler has the same rights in the eyes of the law that pride and prejudice does.

the medium COULD be relevant. in cases where videogame censorship laws have been struck down the courts have specifically compared them to books and film in their ability to be of artistic merit sufficient enough to overcome any miller issues. art is not a named category, but anything which can be readily seen by the courts to be "art" automatically will pass the miller test. which is why i shortened the test to just "art" for simplicity sake. because i didnt think anyone here wanted to hear the whole test, when again i forgot about you. - "vice" is not a named category, obviously. but those things which one would imagine might fall under "vices" tend, more often than not, to be given less favorable treatment by the courts than something that falls closer to "artistic". It's true. "but don't get confused with the level o' protection the speech is getting" - you're flat out wrong here, vices - ie cigarette ads etc, DO get different treatment than films or books. there is no qualified standard which gets applied necessarily, but the court will readily limit the ad, when they wont touch book censorship with a ten foot pole. i dont know if you limit your legal study to only some areas, but seriously, you're dead wrong if you think that those "vice" items get the same protection in reality that novels or films do. some of that is because its an advertisement, which gets different treatment but not all of it. just because its not a named category doesnt mean it gets treated differently. it hasnt been called out by commentators really, but its pretty obvious to anyone who looks. so it serves the interest of video game developers and publishers to make sure that they never get put into the same boat as smoking and porn, but instead are compared to novels and films. which again, is pretty obviously the case right now. which is why i said at the beginning of all this that the courts are readily putting games in the same category of protection that they put film and books. and i know you say it doesnt matter if its a book or a film or whatever, but thats just not true, to a court which is on overload handling more cases than they have time for, its a lot easier for them to quickly look at something and say "it looks like an old western movie, this isnt porn. it passes the test." they dont have to even run through miller because it so obviously meets the artistic element. even if it has nudity. if the medium were something different, some new form of entertainment that couldnt be easily compared to film or books, then you can bet the court would spend a lot more time and effort examining whether it actually has artistic merit. you seem to be very focused on just what the definitions are without looking at what it is the court is actually DOING. but your definitions are dandy enough so this is the last i'll speak to this issue i guess.

i wrote an appellate brief on an obscenity case, so im going to go ahead and say i know more about, and am far more qualified to discuss the issue than nearly all nonlawyers and a big chunk of the legal profession as well. no art and no vice categories? i call bs on that. it hasnt been said as such by the courts but clearly "vice" has always gotten the shaft. adult bookstores given different zoning rights because of "seedy elements" cigarette ad limitations and extra taxes? they call it something else everytime, but when you get down to it, vice activities are given less protection by the courts. still i do absolutely recognize that they themselves won't admit to these categories (and thus i wouldnt bring them up in these exact words in a brief), but don't kid yourself about reality (i may be a bit cynical here so pardon me) and what you call simplicity of impossibility, i call the complexity of the unknown, writing an argument for a pre-miller case would have been an absolute horror because knowing which way to frame your argument would be pure estimate and a big gamble. things became more reliable, and thus simpler, after miller. unless you're trying to tell me that you personally were an attorney involved in a pre-miller case, im going to go ahead and continue to believe as myself, and as most of the profession does, that miller made things more clear. and as for no "art" category in the miller test itself? you're basically just arguing semantics, you agree that there is an art category/prong/element but complain that i didnt mention science and political are in the same element? they dont have to be. you can win that case on art value alone. so yes, art IS a category, even if its part of a larger element of a larger test.

what early games? re was the first to do it that im aware of. the reason was to facilitate the camera angle switching. it just helps that its also realistic. i'm not sure how you are refuting reality on that point. people dont run and shoot. regardless of what they do in most videogames. stupidity agitates me. especially when its from someone who only shows it rarely but with such flourish. edit: ok that was mean. im having a rough day i guess

seriously? its a holdover from when? please explain how its a holdover from a time period? which time period? because im pretty sure that most of the action games i played when resident evil came out let you run and gun. gears of war shooting mechanics? what the **** are you talking about? perfect dark let you run and shoot, why arent you saying that resident evil should have tried to imitate that game? wrong? who the **** said it was wrong? you agree that stopping to shoot is realistic, but then claim that every game that forces you to stop and shoot is not worth playing because its based on old mechanics? seriously, stop. think about what you're saying. then come back and apologize. you are so wrong it actually hurts my brain.

its not outdated. most people cannot run and fire a pistol/rifle with any accuracy at all. if you watch footage of marines and such engaging in a firefight they always, even when running, stop momentarily to raise their rifle, sight, and fire. they dont just run around shooting while moving, they wouldnt hit anything. i'm sure there are some exceptions somewhere, but generally, people in the military always stop to fire.

re 5 was a tad better than dead space. re 4 blows both of them out of the water. just my opinion! i did like dead space, but i got bored with it after about 10 hours. i got twice that much out of re5, and i must have played re 4 for about 60 hours by the time i started getting bored with it, but i still look forward to replaying that one (unlike the other 2) also the whole "i wont play a game where i cant run and shoot at the same time" is kinda stupid. you'd ignore a fantastic game because you're too lazy to learn a different control scheme? oh well, you're only hurting yourself. just like a person who won't watch the maltese falcon because its not in color...

re 4 and 5 are not really survival horror. more like action horror. the survival horror games were all the ones that came before 4.

also i have to add. miller DID make this determination easier. i completely disagree with the notion it did the reverse. Ever since miller it's been a very simple argument for both sides of a dispute to try and best show how the miller test does/does not apply, and if it does, then whether or not the piece is obscene under the test. and yes, it really does usually come down to "is it art" because it wouldnt even have reached the courts if it didnt at least come close to the other parts of the test. so i stand by my original, much simpler statement of : art has protection, non - art does not.

there is no "art" category for first amendment. there is protected speech and unprotected speech. obscenity, kiddie pr0n, and fighting words is examples o' unprotected speech. is no books, music and video games distinction. pr0n gets just as much first protection as does War & Peace or Gone With the Wind. is only when pron is obscene that it not get protection of amendment 1. for instance, is more than a few japanese video games that is considered obscene and does not get first amendment protection. similarly, there is books and movies that is considered obscene. has nothing to do with the medium. HA! Good Fun! thanks grom for doing exactly what i was avoiding. i called it "art" because i didnt want to confuse people with the legal parameters of our first amendment. i was speaking generally, but i am honestly surprised to see you have a sophisticated understanding of the first amendment, are you an attorney as well? i pictured you as an elementary school teacher with a penchant for torturing children with bizarre activities. edit: ok you must be now that i've read your "prong" statement, only people who have read way to many court cases describe legal analysis that way.

i just hope they animated the sleeping people having nightmares writhing around in agony on the ground before perishing (their hair should turn white!) not just a blast effect. oh well, its a cool flavor even if its not animated

Cool story, bro. In other news: why? This just in: the speaker of that quote has absolutely no idea why the witcher drives him to drink copious amounts of red wine from a chalice whilst playing. He has a suspicion it may have been subliminal messaging, of which he was the only victim.

i couldnt compare guild wars to an mmo, since ive never played an mmo (i wont pay a monthly fee for a game - im old school i guess) to me it felt a bit like diablo 2, but with much less clicking and a focus on building a skill "deck" (kinda like a card game) instead of equipment. it was fun for about 120 hours of my time, which is more than i spend on most games.

the witcher is the only game I've ever played where I just HAD to drink red wine while i played. the game made me an alcoholic for the three weeks it took me to finish it. just a neat little side story for you all. also any contra game requires shotgunning a beer after finishing a level with your buddy.

Crom laughs at the constitution. He laughs from his mountain.

i liked guild wars for single player. i spent about 100 hours beating the oc in the first month that the game came out. tough as hell. i tried replaying the game recently and got bored almost instantly. it also felt way easier too.

is that really in the game? thats absolutely awesome if so. probably the single coolest thing i've heard about the entire game.

just because it was underused in f2 doesnt mean it couldnt be used well in f3. I'd like, if there are to be any gambling minigames at all, a poker mini-game because A) poker is a great game for the setting, and B) it's easy to make fun and not take you out of the game. plus you can have an option mid game to pull out your sawed off and blast someone if you think they're cheating. i'm generally not a mini-game fan though, so i'm perfectly happy to have no minigame, but IF one is going in, then I'd like it to be a poker game. maybe let gambling skill affect the LIMIT on the game so that a person with crap gambling skill can only play for 10 caps at a time to prevent them from really making much money at it, while a pro can play for 1k caps or something like that. would actually make it really worth raising. plus it could give bonuses to bluffing hands etc i think that would be the way to go with gambling in new vegas.

still playing dead rising as part of that new capcom triple platinum xbox360 pack. this game is actually really goddamn hard, i'm a little surprised at how popular it was a few years ago because it's not particularly "casual" friendly. still it's fun, and I like the challenge because I know if things ever get too hairy I can just start a new game but keep my level intact so it'd be easier next go round. i finally got burnt out on puzzle quest after too many hours.

the reload animations are definitely the only animations in the game that are actually good. im not a hater, but yeah the animations in the game were poor.

oh i will DEF be waiting for the special edition on this one. even that version had bugs last go round, i cant imagine how bad the initial release version was

for the record, in the us - videogames are legally defined as an art, the same as books and movies, and have the same protections... for now. if hillary clinton or mitt romney or one of the other million conservatives who hate free speech had their way then video games would be taken out of the "art" category and put in the "vice" category like cigarettes and porn. not looking to start political war, both dems and repubs have plenty of members who support unconstitutional censorship laws.

instead of cards i think geralt should keep a black book with a note next to any person he's had sex with "nicole - banged her on a tuesday afternoon, nice rack, annoying voice" "sara - banged her, I was drunk" "john - banged him, it was dark and I was wasted" etc etc way classier than the cards (this post is joke post)

combat controls in gta has always been bad and i play a lot of console games